global warming: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents crisis
Weight: 0.71
, technology
Weight: 0.66
, air pollution
Weight: 0.65
, catastrophe
Weight: 0.65
Siblings nuclear war
Weight: 0.65
, arctic
Weight: 0.51
, carbon dioxide
Weight: 0.33
, overpopulation
Weight: 0.33
, computer science
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
be bad for earth 0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(global warming, has quality bad)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(air pollution, be bad for earth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(global warming, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(air pollution, be bad for earth)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.54
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(air pollution, be bad for earth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(global warming, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(air pollution, be bad for earth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(global warming, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(overpopulation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(global warming, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Plausible(global warming, be bad for earth)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Salient(global warming, be bad for earth)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(global warming, be bad for earth)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(global warming, be bad for earth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(global warming, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(air pollution, be bad for earth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(overpopulation, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(air pollution, be bad for earth)